|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 4. (A) Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the position of the
Perspex® grooves of the phantom by tracking the tip of a wand
with motion analysis (blue) and embedding the position of the grooves when
visualised by an ultrasound probe into the laboratory frame of reference
(red). The line represents a 3D regression line placed through the motion
analysis data for each groove. The inter-quartile range (IQR) of the
perpendicular distance of the motion analysis measured coordinates along the
Perspex® grooves from the regression line in both 2D
(x–z plane) and the 3D were 0.44 mm and 2.12 mm, respectively.
(B) Two-dimensional (2D) comparison of the position of the grooves as
determined by regression through the motion analysis data and the position
determined by the ultrasound technique for each Perspex® plate.
This was measured in the same plane (x–z) that was used to
image the muscle–tendon junction during the hopping experiments. (C)
Histogram of the error of the ultrasound technique compared to the calculated
regression line that represents the position of the phantom grooves in both 2D
and 3D. The IQR of the perpendicular distance from the measured coordinates of
the grooves measured with the ultrasound technique to the linear regression
line in both 2D (x–z plane) and 3D were 0.98 mm and 1.15 mm,
respectively.
|
